Places for People Group Limited (202518972)

Decision
Case ID	202518972
Decision type	Investigation
Landlord	Places for People Group Limited
Landlord type	Housing Association
Occupancy	Assured Tenancy
Date	27 January 2026

Background

The resident reported ASB due to the misuse of the communal area outside his property by persons on his estate. The landlord took steps to investigate the reported ASB. However, the resident felt it had not met its legal responsibilities to act and had dismissed his concerns. The landlord has vulnerabilities for the resident recorded on its systems due to him having post traumatic stress disorder and undiagnosed autism. The resident confirmed to us these vulnerabilities as well as being vulnerable due to his mental health.

What the complaint is about

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
We have also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

There was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
There was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

ASB

The landlord’s evidence shows that it took steps to investigate the resident’s reports of ASB. It demonstrated it took a multi-agency approach to try and resolve the issue and acted upon a safeguarding issue from the resident. However, it failed to fully follow its ASB policy and its communication with the resident was poor.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint responses used clear plain language. However, it failed to identify that the resident had raised a complaint before it logged his complaint. It also failed to acknowledge his complaint at stage 1 within the timeframe set out in its complaints policy. Neither of its responses addressed all the issues he raised in his complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Order	What the landlord must do	Due date
1	Apology order The landlord must apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure: The apology is specific to the failures identified in this decision, meaningful and empathetic. It has due regard to our apologies guidance.	No later than 24 February 2026
2	Compensation Order The landlord must pay the resident £225 made up as follows: £75 it offered in its stage 1 complaint response, if it has not already paid this. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB £50 for its complaint handling failures.	No later than 24 February 2026
3	Contact order The landlord must contact the resident to discuss any current ASB concerns he has: If he is reporting further ASB, the landlord is to agree a time specific action plan. Explain what evidence it would need, how the resident can provide such evidence and any action it could take. Offer the resident support through internal and external agencies.	No later than 24 February 2026

Recommendation

Our recommendation is not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow this.

Our recommendations
It is recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff to ensure that its complaint policy is followed.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

Date	What happened
22 May 2025	The resident raised his complaint with the landlord. He said: He wanted to raise a formal complaint about ongoing and worsening ASB that was severely affecting his ability to enjoy his home. There had been trespass on his property, nuisance and ASB caused by the use of the communal area outside his property. He wanted the landlord to monitor the gatherings outside his property and take action to address the issue and the tenants involved. He wanted the landlord to consider practical interventions to stop the ASB such as restricting the use of the communal area for ball games.
4 June 2025	The resident contacted the landlord about his complaint. He said: The reported ASB was spiralling out of control. Children were playing football outside of his property and were being loud, aggressive and dangerous. His children were unable to play safely in the garden due to this. The swings on the communal area outside his home were being used by drug users. He had reported this multiple times, but nothing had been done. Motorbikes were being ridden illegally on pavements, which was endangering pedestrians. A neighbouring property was being used as a drug house. There was daily use of cannabis from his above neighbour. There was misuse of communal areas, with rubbish being piled up and barbecues being used. He feared reprisals due to the reporting of the issues. Children had broken into a football pitch, which was shut due to ASB. The pitch needed to remain closed until there was proper oversight. He had been trying to move house, but this had not been successful. He felt he was stuck in a place that was unsafe, unhealthy and neglected.
23 June 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It said: It was continuing to monitor his ASB concerns. Due to the complexity and scale of the matters he had raised, it could not confirm the outcome of every concern at that time. Its community safety manager, alongside the police, was involved in managing the reported ASB. It recognised it had not carried out a full risk assessment or created a formal action plan. Due to this it was upholding this part of his complaint. He had declined its offers of mediation. It was committed to doing all it could to address his concerns. It respected the reasons he had refused alternative properties, under a management move. Although it did not uphold this part of his complaint, it was working with the local authority to identify the right property for him and his family. It had arranged a multi-agency meeting for 14 July 2025 to discuss potential solutions. It was actively working in partnership with the local police to respond appropriately to any serious concerns raised. Although it did not uphold this part of his complaint, it recognised the difficult circumstances he faced and the strength it took to come forward. His safety and wellbeing were important to it. He could report incidents of ASB anonymously. As he had repeatedly reported vandalism it upheld this part of his complaint. It would keep him updated on its investigation into this issue. It offered him £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delayed timescale of logging a risk assessment.
14 July 2025	The resident escalated his complaint. He said that the landlord had failed to act and was refusing to meet its legal obligations.
7 August 2025	The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 response. It said: It did not uphold his complaint. After its stage 1 response it had taken action to ensure his concerns were addressed. It was working in line with its ASB policy. It had issued tenancy warnings to identified persons, and it had ongoing actions with neighbours about the ASB. It encouraged him to engage with its ASB process and log incidents of ASB with it. This would provide it with evidence so it could consider action for breach of tenancy. It was working with partner agencies, and a multi-agency meeting was planned for September 2025 to discuss his concerns. It was exploring every option available to it, including reopening the football pitch. It was satisfied that it was taking fair, reasonable and proportionate action in response to his concerns. It was continuing to work with the local authority regarding rehousing him. It had now completed a risk assessment and action plan to tackle the reported ASB.
Referral to the Ombudsman	The resident referred his complaint to us on 10 August 2025. He said: The landlord had repeatedly dismissed his concerns and that had caused him and his family significant and long-lasting harm. The reported ASB had gone on for years, despite him making multiple reports, providing the landlord CCTV evidence and his request it intervene in line with its policies. The reported ASB had left him feeling unsafe in his own home. His children were experiencing distress, anxiety and disruption to their routines. The lack of enforcement from the landlord had left him feeling ignored, unsupported and targeted.

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Complaint	Antisocial behaviour
Finding	Service failure

The resident has told us that the reported ASB had been ongoing since 2022. However, this investigation will focus on events 12 months before he raised his complaint with the landlord on 22 May 2025. This is because as the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for an independent body, such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the earlier actions taken by the landlord to address those matters.
The landlord’s records show that on 29 May 2024 it contacted the police about reports of ASB from the resident and other neighbours. These reports related to the playing of football in the communal area, criminal damage of property, alcohol and cannabis use in the communal area. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy that says it will work with partner agencies to tackle ASB.
The landlord uses an ASB app to allow residents to report incidents of ASB. For context, its records show that it had made the resident aware of this on 2 April 2024. It advised him again on 16 July 2025 to use its ASB app to report incidents of ASB, which has a diary sheet function for residents to report ongoing incidents. However, there is no record that it offered him standard diary sheets, which are available on its website. This was not reasonable given it knew of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord’s ASB records show that it identified the persons responsible for the reported ASB. Following this it sent tenancy breach letters to the persons allegedly responsible on 16 September 2024. This was reasonable and in line with its ASB policy that says it will take reasonable, proportionate and decisive action to tackle ASB.
The landlord’s records show that the resident contacted it on 8 April 2025. He said that the ASB issue had become problematic again. However, there is no record that the landlord responded to him. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its ASB policy that says it will respond to reports of ASB within 5 working days.
It is unclear from the landlord’s records when it opened an ASB case following the resident’s report on 8 April 2025. This was a record keeping failure.
The landlord told the resident on 15 May 2025 that it had asked for quotes to remove the swings on the communal area, that children were using as goalposts. However, it advised him on 29 August 2025 that it would not be removing the swings as that would not stop children playing on the communal area. It would continue to consider all options about the communal area. It would have been reasonable to have told him what these options were to manage his expectations.
The landlord’s stage 1 response said that it had not completed a full risk assessment. However, the evidence shows it completed a risk assessment on 20 May 2025, so it is unclear why it told the resident it had not done this.
The absence of an action plan by the landlord, was a failure by it to follow its ASB policy. This was also a missed opportunity to manage the resident’s expectations, explain if it considered the issue to be ASB and what it could and could not do to resolve the reported ASB. However, its stage 1 response apologised for this which was reasonable.
The landlord’s records show that it completed an action plan on 28 July 2025 and that it would send the resident a letter informing him of this. While it told the resident on 30 July 2025 it had arranged a single point of contact, which was part of its action plan, there is no record it told him what the rest of its action plan was. We asked the landlord on 19 January 2026 to provide us evidence that it had sent him the action plan. However, it was unable to find any record that it had done. This was a record keeping failure and a failure to follow its ASB policy that says it will send residents an action plan letter.
The landlord’s records show that it considered the resident’s request for it to erect a fence around the communal area, as a remedy to the ASB. It was reasonable that it thought that this would create a football court and did not proceed with it. Its records show that it told the resident of its decision on 18 July 2025. This was reasonable.
After the landlord’s stage 1 response, the resident made further reports of ASB on 30 June, 6 July and 12 July 2025. However, there is no record that the landlord contacted the resident to discuss these reports or acted upon them as its stage 1 response said it would. This caused the resident distress as he escalated his complaint on 14 July 2025, as he felt the landlord had failed to act. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its ASB policy that says it will take a victim centred approach and keep victims informed about the status of their ASB case.
The evidence shows that the distress the resident felt from the ASB issue was increasing. On 18 July 2025 he sent the landlord emails that gave it concern about his well-being. The landlord’s records state that it completed a safeguarding referral to social services following this. This was reasonable and shows that it wanted to support the resident. However, there is no record of the referral, which was a record keeping failure.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 July 2025. It said that it would not be investigating children playing football on the communal area, in line with its ASB policy, which says noise from children playing is not ASB. It had reviewed the evidence he had provided, which did not show the children playing were causing malice or criminal damage. It would though be investigating his reports of verbal abuse and urinating in communal areas. This was reasonable.
The landlord contacted the police to discuss the ASB on 24 July 2025. It was concerned that the responsibility for acting in response to the reported ASB was being placed entirely upon it. The police acknowledged the landlord’s concerns on 27 July 2025. They said they were gathering evidence to identify the persons responsible for the ASB, which the landlord was investigating. It would then engage with its ASB youth justice service to determine the best course of action. This was reasonable. However, there is no record that the landlord told the resident of this. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its ASB policy that says it will keep the resident informed on the status of his ASB case.
The landlord’s records show that it agreed to provide the resident with a management move, as a remedy to the ASB he had reported. As it had limited properties in the resident’s preferred area, it obtained agreement with the local authority for them to consider him for a management move. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s evidence shows that it arranged for a multi-agency meeting about the ASB issue in September 2025. The police also arranged for high-visibility patrols in the area to ensure a constant presence and build a rapport with residents. This was reasonable and shows that it was taking action to try and resolve the ASB the resident had reported.
The landlord contacted the resident on 5 September 2025. It told him that following the multi-agency meeting it would be holding monthly street meetings for the next 3 months, with all agencies present. It would continue to visit and engage with residents, and the police would remain visible on the estate. This was reasonable.
The landlord has told us that it has no active ASB cases open for the resident. However, there is no record that it told him that it had closed his ASB case, and the resident has told us that the situation has not changed and the ASB issue remains. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow its ASB policy that says it aims to discuss closing an ASB case with a resident before doing so.
The evidence shows there were positive elements to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of ASB. Its records show it engaged a multi-agency approach. It agreed to the resident’s request to keep a football pitch closed for fear of further incidents of ASB. It completed a safeguarding referral due to concerns about the resident’s well-being and following the multi-agency meeting it presented a reasonable remedy. It provided him with support to find alternative accommodation through a management move. Its records show that it agreed to introduce a local lettings policy for the area as a measure to reduce future ASB.
However, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor. There is no record that it kept him fully informed on the progress of his case, or discussions it had with partner agencies. It failed to follow its ASB policy in relation to sharing its action plan and closing the resident’s ASB case. It missed opportunities to manage his expectations at an earlier stage, as there is no record that before 18 July 2025 it told the resident that noise from children playing was not ASB. Although the resident had told the landlord of the negative impact the ASB had on him, there is no evidence that shows there was any imminent threat to him or his family.
While the £75 compensation the landlord offered the resident went someway to acknowledge the impact on him and his family, we do not consider it was sufficient to put right the impact of its overall response to the ASB he reported. With consideration to all the circumstances and the failings identified in this report, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £100 compensation for distress and inconvenience. This is in line with our remedies guidance and recognises minor failures that the landlord did not appropriately acknowledge. We have also ordered the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any current ASB concerns he has and clearly explain what it can and cannot do to resolve any issues he may have.

Complaint	The handling of the complaint
Finding	Service failure

The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It will send its stage 1 response within 10 working days of its acknowledgment and 20 working days at stage 2.
The landlord sent its stage 1 acknowledgement 7 working days after it said the resident raised his complaint on 4 June 2025. This was not reasonable and a failure to meet its complaints policy timeframe for acknowledging complaints.
The evidence shows that the resident asked the landlord to raise a formal complaint on 22 May 2025. However, there is no record that it acted on this, which is evident from the date its stage 1 acknowledgement said he raised his complaint. This was not reasonable and delayed the resident accessing its complaints process.
The landlord sent acknowledgement at stage 2 on 17 July 2025, the same day the resident asked it to escalate his complaint. This was reasonable and in line with its complaints policy timeframe.
The landlord sent the resident its complaint responses within the timeframes of its complaints policy. This was reasonable.
The landlord’s complaint responses used clear, plain language, explained the reasons for its decision to the resident and offered him a remedy to put things right. It arranged for a single point of contact for the resident, which shows it was taking steps to learn from his complaint. This was reasonable and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord’s complaint responses did not address the reported drug use and use of motorbikes on pavements that the resident raised. Its stage 1 response said it was unable to address all his concerns at that time due to the complexity and scale of the issues. However, its stage 2 response still did not address these concerns. This was not reasonable and a failure to follow the Code which says landlords must address all points raised in the complaint definition and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
With consideration to the circumstances of the case, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance’s recommended range of compensation for minor failures we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident a further £50 compensation. We have also recommended that the landlord arranges complaint handling training for its staff.

Learning

The landlord’s safeguarding actions to support the resident’s wellbeing demonstrates it wanted to support the resident, and it should continue this commitment in its handling of all future similar cases.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

We found record keeping failures in the landlord’s response to the issue the resident raised. Maintaining accurate, detailed records of its decisions will help to improve transparency and accountability.

Communication

The landlord’s communication with the resident could have been more effective.